Too often a crutch

Studies important enough to mention in a
story should be cited

Studies have shown you shouldn't
blindly accept everything journalists tell you about
what studies have shown. Consider, for example, "Growth
spurt for kids' health plan," the Feb. 10 Denver
Post article by Katy Human, writing about the push
to expand taxpayer subsidies for health care for
middle-class and poor children.

Human's article announced:
"Children with health insurance, studies have shown, are
less likely than uninsured kids to end up in emergency
rooms, more likely to get key vaccinations, and less
likely to be absent from school."

My friend Ari Armstrong is a
columnist for the Grand Junction Free Press,
and also the publisher of the Colorado Freedom Report
weblog. Armstrong used to be a senior fellow at the
Independence Institute and, although he's no longer
formally affiliated with the institute, he still writes
for us from time to time. Armstrong e-mailed Human and
politely asked if she could send him the names of two or
three of the studies she had in mind.

She refused. E-mail exchanges
continued, as Armstrong copied Jason Salzman, my
counterpart on these pages, and me. Eventually, Human
did send Armstrong a list of five studies, along with a
note: "I won't be doing this for you again . . . you can
do it yourself, and I don't have time to repeat these
types of searches for everyone who asks."

One wonders why Human had to
spend time searching for the citations, since presumably
she knew about each of the studies before she wrote the
article. The official standards of the Post so
require.

None of five studies Human cited
after the fact support her article's statement about
what "studies have shown" regarding the effects of
insurance on emergency room use, vaccinations and school
absences. Indeed four of the five studies she cited do
not even address those topics (Cousineau, Medical
Care, 2008; Skinner, BMC Health Services
Research, 2007; Ward, CA: A Cancer Journal for
Clinicians, 2008; Morbidity & Mortality Weekly
Report, Sept. 7, 2007).

One study cited by Human was
relevant, and it directly contradicted her article's
claim. The study looked at the effect of providing SCHIP
coverage (subsidized insurance for children whose
families have too much income to qualify for Medicaid).
Emergency room usage "did not change," the study found.
(Szilagyi, Pediatrics, 2004).

I e-mailed Human some questions,
and got a response from the Post's public
affairs editor, Chuck Murphy. Via Murphy, Human supplied
two more citations to substantiate her article's claim
about emergency rooms. One of the studies was
irrelevant, a 2002 Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention report which reported no data about frequency
of emergency room use for the insured and uninsured.

Human supplied another study
which did support her claim. William Johnson and Mary
Rimsza investigated Yuma County, Ariz., and found that
uninsured children there use emergency rooms more often.
The Johnson and Rimsza article, published in
Pediatrics in 2004, forthrightly acknowledged that
four other studies have found that taxpayer-funded
insurance for children actually increases emergency room
usage, and a fifth study finds that there is no effect.
Johnson and Rimsza suggested that results were different
in Arizona because the state's medical welfare program
links recipients to pediatricians, and having a
pediatrician drastically reduces ER visits for both the
insured and uninsured.

So Human's pronouncement in her
Post article - "Children with health insurance,
studies have shown, are less likely than uninsured kids
to end up in emergency rooms" - turns out to be not
entirely accurate. A large body of research contradicts
her claim, and that research is in the very studies
which Human pointed to when she was challenged to
support her claims.

In the last two years, the
phrase "studies have shown" has appeared in
staff-written pieces 31 times in the Rocky Mountain
News, and 36 times in the Post. About half
the time the phrase is used in a direct quote, or in
another way which tells the reader the source of the
information. For example, "According to professor Roy
Hinkley, studies have shown that minnows . . . "

But the other half of the time,
the dailies used "studies have shown" with no source.
The unattributed locution was especially common in
Post editorials, and in health and nutrition
coverage in both papers.

The phrase ill-serves readers
who want to learn more about a subject, but who are left
in the dark about where to look. The phrase can be used
to falsely declare scholarly consensus about a subject.
And the phrase can be a crutch for a writer who feels
"sure" about a supposed fact, but who doesn't want to
take the time to verify it.

If "studies" are important
enough to mention in an article, they should usually
should be named in the article. Print space is scarce,
but a quick citation can be offered in three to five
words. For online versions, full citations can be
supplied at the end of the article.

Make a donation to support Dave Kopel's work in defense of constitutional
rights and public safety.

Nothing written here is to be construed as
necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an
attempt to influence any election or legislative action. Please send
comments to Independence Institute, 727 East 16th Ave., Colorado 80203. Phone 303-279-6536. (email) webmngr @ i2i.org